On Military Memoirs. Soldier-authors, publishers, plots and motives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary \n \nAlthough there are quite a few soldiers who write autobiographies about their deployment experiences, a comprehensive profile does not exist that provides reliable, quantifiable insight into 21st century soldier-authors that exceeds the Anglo-American view, especially when it comes to (self-published) books. \nThis study makes up for these deficiencies by studying all non-fiction, autobiographical books, first published between 2001 and 2010 in Dutch, English or German in the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands that (mainly) deal with the deployment experiences of military personnel in Afghanistan and are intended for the public at large. \n \nIt provides answers to four questions: \n1.\tWho are the soldiers who write autobiographical books about their deployment in Afghanistan? \n2.\tWho are their publishers? \n3.\tWhat do they write about? \n4.\tWhy do they say they write? \n \nTo answer these questions, this study uses statistical analysis in combination with qualitative descriptive coding techniques to provide a cross-cultural analysis of five different Western countries. It is an interdisciplinary study, using and combining theories and methods from five different fields: sociology, history, literature, psychology and anthropology. One of the conclusions from this research is that in the countries studied there is a very strong relationship between the number of soldiers that have been deployed to Afghanistan and the number of books produced. For every 6,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, one extra mission-related autobiographical book is published. Another main conclusion is that the soldier-authors of these books are only partly (when it comes to branch of service and gender) representative of the average soldier. Particularly noticeable is that where the average soldier is deployed with his own unit, the average soldier-author is often (50%) individually deployed. This result was predicted by what is called in this study the ‘fringe writer hypothesis’. \nIn some countries, the majority (Germany) or even all military autobiographies (the UK, Canada) are published by publishers that invest at their own cost and risk in these books (‘traditional publishers’), in other countries (the US, the Netherlands) there is also a large self-publishing market for military books. Most military autobiographies are still published with traditional publishers, which are hardly ever specialized military publishers, but normally general publishers. These traditional publishers are looking for the traditional soldier: a soldiers who has been deployed more than once, preferable with his or her own unit, is a professional, not a reservist, with a junior rank and a kinetic background. This ideal commercial writer, however, neither exactly resembles the average soldier, nor the average soldier-author. Whether a soldier-author’s book will have a positive or a negative plot can be reasonably predicted by looking at two author characteristics. Authors who still work for the Ministry of Defence when their book is first published generally write positive plots, and kinetic soldiers predominantly write negative plots. \nThe research into plots confirmed Harari’s revelatory plot thesis, which predicts that the majority of contemporary military autobiographies either has a disenchantment plot or a growth plot. At the same time it showed that Fussell’s disillusionment thesis (that military autobiographies have predominantly disenchantment plots) is no longer valid in the 21st century Afghanistan autobiographies that are written by professional soldiers, instead of conscripts. \nThe specific choice of plot is country-dependent and related to that country’s strategic narrative on war in general, and on the mission in Afghanistan in particular. In a nowadays pacifist country like Germany, the disenchantment plots prevail, for example, whereas in a militarily ambitious country such as the UK growth and action plots dominate. \nAlmost all soldier-authors researched offer some kind of motivation why they write. Four main reasons can be distinguished: getting recognition, enabling change, helping others or helping themselves. What is striking is that intrapersonal reasons (such as helping others or enabling change) are far more common than personal reasons such as helping yourself. Self-help motives in general are mostly given by individually deployed soldiers. \nThe study ends with some recommendations for further research, that include validating the results found in this study by looking at other countries, non-military autobiographies books and by researching the illustrations found in these books.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it